Main menu

The "real" meaning of Fight Club?

Pages

After a good, long run, we have decided to close our forums in an effort to refocus attention to other sections of the site. Fortunately for you all, we're living in a time where discussion of a favorite topic now has a lot of homes. So we encourage you all to bring your ravenous love for discussion to Chuck's official Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr and Instagram. And, as always, you can still post comments on all News updates. Thank you for your loyalty and passion over the years. These changes will happen June 1.

I'm not really sure. I was this close to reading a wiki page about it. 'Jonhun1' posted a big long post with subtle clues in Fight Club about "LGAT" contributors, but then Stephen broke the thread somehow.

It was a thread he made just a couple of days ago. But I could've sworn I'd seen something similar before. So that makes sense. Must be someone bumped the thread you're referring to in the last year since I've been around.

I have a former coworker who's caught up in one of those kinds of cults. The call themselves avatars and wizards and have those Tony Robbins walk on hot coals conventions and make lots of money getting others to abandon real life and fork over cash for enlightenment.

I wonder if I could start one where I tell everyone to just spin around in circles until they fall down and see God.
Maybe do that thing, where you put your forehead on the end of a baseball bat and spin around that way.
I could sell specially made hand-carved wooden poles that focus the enlightenment when you spin around on it.

You know how when sometimes if you quote some one, and they had a link at the end of their post, it'll dump whatever you replied with into the quote box also?
I wonder if someone posted something that caused it to lock everyone out?

If you were the last person to post in there, what did you post? Don't post it here though, just say what it was, so this thread doesn't get a bad case of the goo-goo also.

Hi. Sorry - I haven't had the energy to repost on LGATs. Will do so on this thread in the next 24 hours. I've previously written an essay on it which is a few pages, but it was written with the intended audience being people who already know about lgats. I'll have to provide you with the background for the links to make sense. For those who can put up with the reading I can assure you it's pretty interesting.

Because I initially wrote this analysis of Fight Club to be posted on a cult discussion forum that was dedicated to Large Group Awareness Trainings (LGATs), I assumed that those reading would be familiar with what goes on in these trainings. In order for it to make sense to you (who I’ll presume have little to no knowledge of this industry) I’ll highlight the most important elements before providing the essay.
Large Group Awareness Training is a generic term for a type of “enlightenment training” that first came about in San Franciso in the early 1970’s. As someone on the thread mentioned these trainings have some of their roots in Scientology (in fact ex-Scientologists who have watched undercover footage of the trainings have stated that the similarities are quite clear). The first four of these trainings were est (formed by Werner Erhard), Lifespring (formed by John Hanley), PSI World (formed by Thomas and Jane Willhite) and Actualizations (formed by Stewart Emery). Werner Erhard is generally considered the ‘godfather’ of these trainings and while est no longer exists, est effectively became The Forum, which later became Landmark Education. Landmark Education currently has over 100 offices worldwide and a presence in over 25 countries. Of particular relevance to this post is that Chuck Palahniuk took his trainings with this organisation. Because the trainings are very scripted and structured many spinoffs from the original trainings have occurred in the last forty years. There are now hundreds of these organisations worldwide in practically every country that you can think of (Canada, USA, UK, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, Thailand, Singapore, Netherlands, Japan, Israel etc.)
Typically these trainings run over three or four days and they are made up of long lectures, guided visualisation exercises, New Age philosophy and interactions between participants and the trainer. (There can be anywhere from a few dozen to a few hundred people at these trainings.) Most significantly the trainer – and the training – is exceptionally abusive and confrontational. Generally people will talk about problems in their lives and they will be mocked and harassed by the trainer until they “take responsibility”. It’s no coincidence that the people who offer criticism of LGATs are generally cult experts – Steven Hassan mentions them in his book ‘Combatting Cult Mind Control’, Dr Margaret Singer dedicates an entire chapter (chapter 8) of her book ‘Cults in Our Midst’ to LGATs and the head of the International Cultic Studies Association, Dr Michael Langone is equally critical of them. A highly unfavourable biography of Werner Erhard was also written by journalist Steven Pressman, for which he was unsuccessfully sued by Landmark Education.
Why would people take part in these trainings? The trainings are described as experiential – as a result of severe stress applied for a few days and then suddenly removed, participants are pushed into a mild manic state. They feel confident, sociable, energised, focused and euphoric. This lasts for a few days to a few weeks and many become addicted to this state. (The term “course junkie” is very appropriate). It can’t be overstated just how pleasurable and empowering this state is for many. Few understand that their state of mind is related to altered neurotransmitter levels and that the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach used by LGATs inevitably causes serious psychological harm to a portion of its participants.
“Most of the people I’ve seen at our clinic – and they come in after the training in fairly substantial numbers – have suffered reactions that range from moderately bad to dreadful,” the executive director of New York City’s Lincoln Institute for Psychotherapy reported in 1978. “They are confused and jarred, and the same pattern – elation, depression, feelings of omnipotence followed by feelings of helplessness – is repeated over and over again.” (Pressman, 1993, p.194, in reference to est)
In Margaret Singer’s book she provides horrifying evidence of psychotic breakdowns, suicides, PTSD, phobias, cognitive difficulties and stress related illnesses. What I believe happened with Chuck Palahniuk is that he took one or two of Landmark’s trainings, got something out of them – enjoyed the fresh perspective they provide on life – but, being the smart person that he is, decided to do some research on them and came upon two of the books I’ve already mentioned:
1. ‘Cults in Our Midst’ by Dr Margaret Singer
2. ‘Outrageous Betrayal – The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile’ by Steven Pressman
In these books he would have learned about the people who are hurt by these trainings and I believe that this caused him conflict. On one hand he has these trainings which have worked for him – impressive sounding philosophy and a no-holds-barred attitude to life – and on the other hand he has evidence that, while these trainings might offer benefit to some, there are others who suffer enormously as a direct result of taking part. He would have been made aware of the way that LGATs – instead of making people conscious of the dangers –settle lawsuits for the few that are harmed with substantial payoffs. I believe that Fight Club is about Chuck Palahniuk’s wrestling between these trainings (and their way of viewing the world) and the facts offered by Singer and Pressman.
What follows are some of my observations about the LGAT industry and Fight Club. Why, you might ask, have you never heard about LGATs before? The answer is simple and quite revealing. For the first three hours of any given LGAT participants will be put in their place and explained the rules they have to agree to for the duration of the training. These rules are repeated over and over again – most of which effectively hand all authority over to the trainer – by the most crucial and emphasised of all the rules is that “YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT WHAT GOES ON IN THE LGAT”.
The LGAT industry and Fight Club
1984 was not George Orwell’s only popular novel - his other masterpiece was a book he called Animal Farm. The exact plot of the novel is not important for this discussion, but the concept is worth noting. While the book was at face value about a bunch of animals living on a farm, it is in fact an allegory representing the events which led to the 1917 Russian Revolution. Orwell described Animal Farm as a satirical tale against Stalin and stated that it was the first book in which he had tried, with full consciousness of what he was doing, "to fuse political purpose and artistic purpose into one whole”. As some of the more obvious examples of double-meanings one can look at the pigs in the novel – Old Major, Napoleon, Snowball and Squealer:
• Old Major was a combination of Karl Marx and Lenin
• Napoleon was an allegory of Joseph Stalin
• Snowball was based chiefly on Leon Trotsky
• Squealer, in charge of propaganda, enjoyed a similar position to that of Molotov
Orwell was not the first novelist, nor the last, to use his writing to make his views on a veiled subject known. As I will demonstrate there is a contemporary author who, having taken part in an LGAT, felt it necessary to surreptitiously express his views on this industry through his most noted work. Unlike Animal Farm, where Orwell intended his audience to pick up on his message, in this novel the message remained hidden for many years. It is only through an in depth understanding of LGATs – which you should by now possess – that the allegory of Fight Club may start to gain clarity:
If you Google ‘Landmark + Fight Club’ the first search result will be a link to:http://www.landmarkeducationnews.com/landmark-education/fight-club-autho.... Here you will find an article by Landmark Education, proudly proclaiming “Fight Club Author Discusses Creative Process; Credits Landmark Education”. This Landmark Education article refers to an article by Matt Thorne, published in the UK newspaper, The Independent, on Sunday 13 July 2008. [http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/chuck-pal... This fifteen hundred word article makes reference to Landmark Education (LE) with just the following thirty two words:
“Palahniuk began his career after attending a self-help course called Landmark, and he tells me that although he hasn't attended a course in several years, it still informs his attitude to life.”
Since just two percent of the article makes reference to LE, and since a large portion of the article discusses the writing groups and other means by which his writing career took off, it seems a little much for Landmark to lay claim to the creativity of one of their graduates.
LGATs rely on half-truths and the manipulation of language to convert participants – the 2003 French documentary on Landmark Education is a great example of this. A woman complains that she is being harassed by constant phone calls from Landmark employees (volunteers). The trainer tells her that she is wrong – that she is not being harassed, but supported. If LGATs can twist the truth or use ambiguity to their advantage they will do it without batting an eye. As I will show you, Fight Club is anything but complimentary towards Landmark Education or to the LGAT industry as a whole. The author, Chuck Palahniuk has used Fight Club to satirize the LGAT industry, commenting on how recklessly it goes about providing enlightenment, sweeping casualties indifferently under the rug. For the purposes of this section I will assume that you have seen the movie Fight Club.
So let’s begin. Edward Norton plays a ‘nameless’ character who cannot sleep. He tries the traditional medical route, but is turned away by a doctor who suggests he check out “real pain” – by visiting the testicular cancer support group. Norton goes to these groups, which involve putting on a name tag, sharing, and – quite frequently – crying (purging emotions). Some of these groups use guided meditation (Norton is told to ‘go to his cave and find his power animal’ for example). Norton does not understand why but these groups provide him with relief. He comments “Every night I died… and every night I was born again… resurrected.” They allow him to sleep so he does not question how they work.

I believe that Norton represents a typical person who gets sucked into LGAT courses; in all likelihood Norton represents Palahniuk himself. LGATs require name tags, they encourage sharing, there is frequently crying, purging of emotions and LGATs also use guided meditation. Norton’s enjoyment of these groups comes to a halt when Marla Singer arrives. Norton narrates as Singer wanders into the group “… UNTIL SHE… RUINED… EVERYTHING”. Marla ruins the experience for Norton because he knows that she’s faking which reminds him that he’s faking. Ultimately Singer is a reality check for Norton – preventing him from simply enjoying the group without thinking about what is really going on around him. Marla Singer represents Margaret Singer – the greatest critic of LGATs and the author of Cults in Our Midst. Margaret Singer’s full name is Margaret Thaler Singer: Mar-ler Singer. This allegory is not particularly well hidden by Palahniuk. I suspect that he did gain some value from the initial Landmark seminars – that he had a peak experience or two and that he wanted to believe that his experiences were uncorrupted – but that he came upon the work of Singer which made him reconsider whether he could support the company in good conscience.

Finally we get to Tyler Durden, played by Brad Pitt. Tyler is ultimately a figment of Norton’s imagination, but he represents a more impulsive, risk-seeking, confident version of Norton. Tyler represents the person that Norton wants to be, the person he aspires to be. In short Tyler represents an LGAT trainer or, more specifically, he represents Werner Erhard. At the end of the movie Tyler explains to Norton:

“You were looking for a way to change your life. You could not do this on your own. All the ways you wish you were – that’s me. I look like you want to look, I fuck like you want to fuck, I am smart, I am capable and I am free in all of the ways that you are not.”

Tyler Durden is a charismatic, alpha male sociopath. He represents freedom from all of the rules and he represents a new and exciting way of looking at the world. When you consider the three professions that Tyler has, the metaphor begins to gain clarity. Norton explains early on in the film that “Tyler works as a waiter at the luxurious PRESSMAN Hotel”. Steven Pressman was the journalist who wrote the damning biography on Werner Erhard entitled “Outrageous Betrayal – The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile”. Later on in the film Norton comments “Tyler was now involved in a class action lawsuit with the PRESSMAN Hotel over the urine content of their soup.” In 1998 Landmark Education sued Steven Pressman and attempted to force him to reveal all of his sources (presumably so that they could be duly harassed). Tyler’s second job is as a projectionist. He takes this job, we are told, because it affords him the opportunity to splice single frames of pornography into family films. “Nobody knows that they saw it, but they have…” Norton explains. LGATs have been accused continuously over the forty years they’ve been around of saying one thing and meaning another. An interesting YouTube video looks at one specific example where Landmark uses the word “enroll” obsessively in trying to get graduates to associate their own success with enrolling others. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDDYMyj-ImI]

The final job that Tyler does is he makes soap. “In order to make soap,” Tyler tells Norton, “we need fat and the best fat for making soap comes from humans.” Consider what LGATs do. As well as visualisation exercises and fortune cookie lectures, they get you to reveal your deepest, darkest secrets – the problems, the concerns and the things which are troubling you. What they then do is they take what you say and they twist it around (so that you can “take responsibility”) and then they give it back to you. For this they charge hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. Fat represents the bad parts of people that are repackaged and returned to participants. Norton comments while Tyler sells the soap “It was beautiful - we were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.”

The greatest conflict during the movie is between Tyler, who represents hedonism and doing things without conscience, and Marla (who represents information, logic and reason). Norton at one point comments “Other than when they were fucking Tyler and Marla were never in the same room together.” Before Norton tries to send Marla away on a bus he exclaims “They think you’re some kind of threat – I can’t explain it right now.” Tyler at one point earlier in the film says “You’re not into her are you?” Norton immediately says he’s not. Tyler continues “That’s good, because she’s a predator posing as a house pet. Stay away from her.” He later sits down next to Norton and says “Now I can’t have you talking to her about me. You say anything about me and about what goes on in this house and we’re over…” He then makes Norton promise three times that he would not talk to Marla about him. (This type of promising is quite reminiscent of LGAT agreements to never talk about what happens in them) My view is that this also represents the way that trainers ask participants to disengage from reason during the trainings. This extract from Werner Erhard’s biography, Outrageous Betrayal – The Dark Journey of Werner Erhard from est to Exile, sums up this attitude of LGATs quite nicely:
“…For the first several hours of the training, Erhard and his other trainers kept up a non-stop barrage of verbal insults, taunting the participants in the straight-backed chairs, insisting they were all worthless human beings who clung to beliefs about themselves and their own lives that were rooted in ridiculous notions about reason, logic, and understanding.” (Pressman, 1993, p.71)

So there are three main characters in the film, all of whom may represent players in the LGAT industry:
• Norton – representing a typical LGAT participant, or Palahniuk himself
• Marla Singer – representing Margaret Singer
• Tyler Durden – representing an LGAT trainer, or Werner Erhard himself

I believe that Norton actually represents a few players, based upon interactions he has during the film. I referred earlier to the fact that Tyler is a more free and “re-invented” version of Norton. If Tyler represents Werner Erhard and he is the re-invention of Norton then who would Norton also be? Werner Erhard was, of course, born as Jack Rosenberg but he left his wife and four kids, moved to a new city, changed his name and started a new family. You have one guess as to what Norton’s nameless character was called on the set while making Fight Club. Norton’s character was referred to as ‘Jack’. You may also remember from the movie that Norton finds a strange book in Tyler’s house.

Tyler (on a little bike): Hey man. What are you reading?
Norton: Listen to this. It’s an article written by an organ in the first person. I am Jack’s medulla oblongata. Without me Jack could not regulate his heat-rate, blood pressure, or breathing. There’s a whole series of these… I am Jack’s colon…
Tyler: Yeah… I get cancer. I kill Jack.

And during one scene, where Norton sits on the floor and Tyler sits in the bath, Norton says:

“I don’t know my dad… I mean I know him but he left when I was like six years old… married this other woman, had some other kids… He did this every few years – he goes to a new city and starts a new family.”

Consider Werner Erhard’s story in light of Norton’s comments:

“On May 25th, 1960, Rosenberg picked up June from her real estate office and drove to the Newark airport, where they left the car in the parking lot and boarded a flight to Indianapolis. More than a dozen years would pass before Rosenberg’s family would hear from him again. By the time they landed a few hours later, Jack Rosenberg and June Bryde were ready to begin new lives as Werner and Ellen Erhard.” (Pressman 1993, p.6)
“Jack Rosenberg figured he had every good reason in the world to leave behind the city of his birth and the family that had created such a heavy burden for him.” (Pressman, 1993, p.3)
Norton’s profession also hints at the biggest criticism against LGATs. He works as a “recall coordinator” and his job is “to apply the formula”.
NORTON: I'm a recall coordinator. My job was to apply the formula. It's simple arithmetic. It's a story problem. A new car built by my company leaves Boston traveling at 60 miles per hour. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: do we initiate a recall? You take the number of vehicles in the field (A) and multiply it by the probable rate of failure (B), multiply the result by the average out-of-court settlement (C). A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
(Norton is explaining this to a woman next to him on a plane)

WOMAN: Does this sort of accident happen often?

NORTON: You wouldn’t believe…

WOMAN: ... Which ... car company do you work for?

NORTON: A major one. (This hints at Landmark)

What Palahniuk is describing here is the fact that LGATs are well aware that a small portion of their participants suffer enormously as a result of their trainings, but they aren’t willing to stop running the courses because their revenues from satisfied participants exceed their costs of out of court settlements. Chapter eight of Margaret Singer’s book Cults in Our Midst speaks of the numerous out of court settlements paid out by LGATs over the years. Like this car company, LGATs prefer to pay people off in the event of disaster, rather than warning people of the real risks because from a business perspective this is a more profitable route to take.
I imagine that you may still be skeptical that Palahniuk was using the movie as a metaphor, so here are a couple of other “coincidences”. Werner Erhard’s mansion in San Francisco was located on Franklin Street. In Outrageous Betrayal Steven Pressman frequently refers to it and chapter eleven of Erhard’s biography is entitled “Nightmare on Franklin Street”.
“Inside the Franklin House, from which Erhard directed his minions, nothing escaped the attention and demands of the master.” (Pressman, 1993, p.123)
The final showdown in Fight Club – the building from which Norton and Marla eventually watch the other buildings collapsing is in Franklin Street. This name comes up twice in the movie – firstly when Norton checks a number that he called while “asleep” he is told that the address is “1888 Franklin Street” and later, after he escapes from the cops who are in on the plot (after running in his boxers down the road) he reaches a road with a bus shelter on it. He briefly looks up to the name on the bus shelter and it says “Franklin St”. Just prior to all of this is the scene where Norton tries to turn himself in. He approaches the counter in the police station and confesses to be responsible for “multiple acts of vandalism…” Just before the movie moves on to the discussion with the policemen there is a brief changeover where a couple of things flash on the screen. One of the things which flashes is a green sign which says “Emery Street”.
“Erhard had no interest in becoming partners with anyone. At the same time, he tried to recruit to his own staff a witty and spritely irreverent Australian named Stewart Emery, who also worked for Mind Dynamics.” (Pressman, 1993, p.40)
Anyone who has read Outrageous Betrayal, or is familiar with the origins of LGATs, knows that Stewart Emery played a significant role in the movement. Emery worked closely with Erhard at est for a number of years before breaking away to form his own LGAT, Actualizations. These things seem too specific to just be coincidence.

Onto more general comparisons. Fight club is effectively about brutal interactions – two people at a time – during which participants achieve some sort of insight into life from taking part. Fight club is incredibly rule oriented. There is a major focus on the rules during the film and the first and second rules about Fight Club are “YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB”. LGATs, of course, do exactly the same thing, enforcing strict rules – the most crucial and emphasized of which is that you do not reveal any detail about what goes on in the LGAT. There are other references to enlightenment which appear to link with LGATs. Norton makes statements like:

• “Every night I died. Every night I was born again.”
• “Afterwards we all felt saved.”
• “I am enlightened.”
• “After a fight you could deal with anything”
• “We all started seeing things differently”
• “I became the calm, little center of the world. I was the Zen master”

As the movie progresses the fight clubs start to develop into something that Tyler calls “Project Mayhem”. Durden and Norton end up living in a house with scores of volunteers, who cook, clean and perform every conceivable menial task that is requested upon them. This group – referred to as the “space monkeys” – also go around playing pranks and causing general disturbances around the city. This group of live-in servants mimics the setup which has been observed in LGAT headquarters such as Landmark Education. An inordinately high proportion of administration and sales work is performed not by paid employees of the company, but by brainwashed “monkeys” who believe that they are doing the world a service.
“Around the country, a growing army of enthusiastic est volunteers (called “assistants” in est jargon) contributed free labor – sometimes up to forty hours per week – to the organization, filling every conceivable task from handling the phones in est centers around the country to cleaning out the toilets and scrubbing the pots and pans at Franklin House.” (Pressman, 1993, p.86)
Another likely parallel is when the space monkeys infiltrate the dinner where a high ranking official is promising to catch the "underground group responsible for the various acts of vandalism." When this high-ranking official takes a bathroom break he opens the door to find Tyler, who grabs him, throws him to the ground and punches him. The space monkeys then all gather around this terrified man, they place tape over his mouth and they pull his pants to his knees. Tyler then menacingly tells this high ranking official:
"Hi. You're going to call off your rigorous investigation... you're going to publicly state that there is no underground group... or... these guys are going to take your balls" (one of the space monkeys flashes a knife at the frightened man.) Tyler then leans in right close to the man and says, "Do not fuck with us!"

Landmark has a reputation of threatening lawsuits against anyone who doesn't say that they are the best thing ever and completely harmless. Rick Ross has been subject to one of these lawsuits (which he won) but Margaret Singer was less fortunate. Under duress from Landmark Education she had to remove Landmark Education from her book and state that Landmark Education was not a cult:
“I do not believe that either Landmark or the Landmark Forum is a cult or a sect, or meets the criteria of a cult or a sect.”

Later she made the following statement:
"“I do not endorse them [Landmark Education] - never have. The SOBs have already sued me once. I'm afraid to tell you what I really think about them because I'm not covered by any lawyers like I was when I wrote my book.”
The following statements, the first by Norton and the second by Tyler reflect the idea that it is only when we realise that it’s all empty and meaningless that we can begin to create.
“When the fight was over nothing was solved, but nothing mattered.”
“First, you have to know that someday, you are going to die. Until you know that, you will be useless.” “…It’s only when we have lost everything that we are free to do anything”
All LGATs have some form of an exercise which forces participants to accept that they have nothing, want nothing and are nothing. In the movie this takes the form of Tyler pouring chemicals on Norton’s hand and forcing him to accept this. Consider also the following statement by Werner Erhard which reflects his philosophy on life:
“People began to realise that not only was it meaningless and empty, but it was empty and meaningless that it was empty and meaningless… and in that there is an enormous freedom…”
Then there is the way that est grew from San Francisco to have presence in nearly every major city. Est was spread throughout the USA by Erhard, but very soon – because the courses were highly scripted – former est trainers began starting up their own LGATs under various different names. In the movie this is represented as follows:
NORTON: Did you know that there’s a Fight Club up in Delaware City?
TYLER: Yeah, I heard…
NORTON: There’s one in Penns Grove too. Bob’s even found one up in Newcastle…
TYLER: Yeah, did you start that one?
NORTON: No, I thought you did…
TYLER: No…
It’s also interesting how like in LGATs, there is a big emphasis on homework in Fight Club. LGATs (Landmark included) rely heavily on homework to minimise sleep and to maximise the amount of time that you are effectively in the LGAT environment. The more you are thinking about the doctrine they are trying to implant in you, the less time you have for sleep, reflection and influence from the outside world. Likewise in Fight Club, homework becomes a key part of the process…
TYLER: Each one of you has a homework assignment…
NORTON: Tyler dreamed up new homework assignments. He handed them out in sealed envelopes…
Commenting on the way that isolation is one of the most crucial parts of thought reform, Tyler and Norton live completely alone, in a dilapidated old house, and Norton remarks “At night we were alone for half a mile in every direction” (while they’re hitting golf balls). According to Dr. Robert Jay Lifton – the author of Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism – Milieu Control (“environment control”) is the first and most crucial aspect of thought reform. If you isolate a person from any perspective but the one you are trying to indoctrinate them with, then you can convince a person of virtually anything. Norton also comments on how even the most bizarre conditions normalise after a while. While wading through ankle deep water to switch on the electricity, he says “… by the end of the first month I didn’t miss TV”.
LGATs manufacture a transient dopamine high in participants. Very briefly summarised: applying extraordinary stress for a sustained period (which causes the brain to produce excess dopamine) and then suddenly removing the stress causes this high. Because participants’ brains will temporarily be in a state of psychological hypervigilance there will be a period of a few days to a few weeks during which there will be a dopamine excess (much like one would experience taking cocaine). A scene from Fight Club provides a clear example of this. This scene is the “human sacrifice” scene. Tyler pulls Raymond K Hessel out from a convenience store, puts him on his knees and tells him “Raymond! You are going to die!” (while pointing a gun at the back of his head). Raymond is beside himself with fear, shaking, begging and crying as Tyler taunts him about his sad life and how he needs to sort it out. (This is exactly what LGAT trainers do to participants). Eventually Tyler lets Raymond go and he sprints into the darkness, having just been “given back his life”. Norton is frustrated with Tyler for doing this and says, “What was the point of that?!!... I feel sick…” to which Tyler responds, “Imagine how he feels. Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K Hessel’s life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you or I have ever tasted…” (Major stress sustained for a period and then suddenly removed = euphoria). This is effectively how LGATs generate their experiences.
Palahniuk’s commentary on the recklessness, and the inevitable loss of lives coming from, LGATs is seen when Bob is killed during Project Mayhem. The space monkeys bring his dead body back to the house and believe that because he was killed serving Project Mayhem they should just “bury him in the garden”. One of the space monkeys says “Those mother fuckers!” - referring to the police who shot him. Norton immediately fires back “You’re running around in ski masks trying to blow things up – what did you think was going to happen?” It is clear that these space monkeys (representing LGAT supporters) have lost perspective of right and wrong. They have dissociated themselves from the human – Bob – and claim that “in Project Mayhem we have no names…” Norton cannot believe the zombie-like attitude of the space monkeys and stops anyone from touching Bob.
NORTON: “This is a person. His name is Robert Polsen… and you’re not going to bury him in the fucking garden.”
Right near the end of the movie this attitude of LGATs is referred to once more. Norton has arrived in the parking lot at Franklin Street and has found the bomb, placed in the van by Tyler. Tyler stands outside the van while Norton attempts to disarm the bomb.

TYLER: We’re not killing anyone. We’re setting them free!”

NORTON: Bob is dead! They shot him in the head!

TYLER (shrugging): You want to make an omelet you gotta break some eggs…

This comment to me summarises the attitude of LGATs to those hurt. It also summarises the attitudes of people who support LGATs, knowing the damage they cause. Like Chuck Palahniuk I have looked into this and found out just how much misery is caused by these organisations. I don’t know what the solution to these trainings is. I believe people should be able to risk their mental health should they choose to, but what is crucial is that they make an informed decision. They need to understand that the methods used are hit and miss, that certain people respond extremely badly to this type of training and that the damage which occurs may be permanent. Not only this, but they should be aware that by supporting LGAT organisations they are supporting an irresponsible business practice that inevitably leaves many people broken and families destroyed.

The film ends with The Pixies’ song “Where is my Mind” playing and Norton and Marla watching helplessly as buildings collapse all around them. They are holding hands as the world falls apart and this, to me, represents reconciliation with reality. Perhaps it was a difficult thing for Palahniuk to reject Landmark and all that it stands for, but – in spite of this – he chose reality, truth and evidence. I like to think that it signifies sanity, a denunciation of all that LGATs stand for and, ultimately, a conscience clear from all of the pain that these organisations cause.

I did get to see that last paragraph though.
I don't know if I'd describe them watching the buildings fall as "helplessly."
I'm not sure how I'd describe it though. I'm sure each of them would be feeling different things towards it.
I dunno. I just never got the impression that they felt helpless about it.

It made me go a bit cross eyed when I first picked it up as well :) If you read the two books I mentioned (you only have to read chapter eight of Cults in Our Midst) and then re-watch the movie it will be a completely different experience.

Compelling essay, johnhun1. Clearly you did a shit ton of research. I thought a couple of the connections may have been a tad bit of a stretch but for the most part it makes perfect sense. Very informative. Bravo.

I wonder how closely Chuck worked with David Fincher on the film. Was Chuck actively involved during the entire process?
Edit: The FAQ here sort of answers that question. Perhaps Fincher was simply interested in capturing all the details from the book. It's been a while since I've read Fight Club. How true to the book is the movie in terms of dialogue, story line, and details?

I've also wondered that about David Fincher. My guess is that he was aware of what Palahniuk was doing. The example of 'Emery Street' flashing on the screen couldn't have been done without Fincher. I can't see why he would have included it without knowing the meaning behind it.

Hi Crescendo. Thanks for taking the time to read all of that - I realise it's quite a lot to take in. I agree with you completely that some of the connections are much clearer than others and some, I admit, are 'creative' to use a forgiving turn of phrase. I do think, however, that once you have accepted - by looking at the high number of very clear links - that Palahniuk was writing the novel as an allegory it becomes a question of trying to discern what he may have been saying with some of the other imagery. For example it's quite clear that Tyler's one job - as a waiter at the Pressman Hotel - is a reference to LGATs. His second job - as a projectionist who subliminally messes with people's heads is slightly less clear. The third job - making soap - I would never have even considered, except - after finding links in his other two jobs - it would seem strange that the third job was just randomly chosen. The link to LGATs in this job is far less obvious (and I acknowledge that there's some speculation) but it seems more unlikely that it has no meaning. Some of the other stuff, I agree, is a stretch but that's the fun part of writing an analysis of this sort. I'd love to hear other possible interpretations or where I'm way off - I just think that it's brilliant how gives Landmark the middle finger without overtly doing so.

I must admit to being surprised at how little interest there is in this topic. Chuck Palahniuk fan site... best known novel... best known movie... possible explanation of what it's all about...and just three people who seem to be interested? Very odd.

I hated English classes in college because of that. Those discussions made my brain slow down. And half the time, the authors weren't trying to symbolize something big and amazing, it was on accident. I just find that kind of deconstruction pointless. I'm betting this guy is just posting his English homework for us to dissect. Too bad it's much too TL;DR.

This is how I feel about every book, whether I enjoy it or not. I'd make a really terrible scholar/critic/explainer of why I enjoy books or don't.

^This

Anais wrote:

I am just like that, Alecia. It's why I can't write reviews for the life of me. I'd say "I really liked it," end of story.

^And this. And apply it to all forms of visual and auditory entertainment. I'm the shittiest reviewer on the face of the Earth. I almost always miss any subtle themes in books and movies. Perhaps that's why I'm not allowed to enjoy David Lynch films.
Despite that, I usually appreciate people who are able to. But I never ever pretend afterward that I knew the whole time so I don't look stupid. Never.

I just sound stupid when I try to critique books, which defeats the whole purpose of looking smart by reading books...which defeats the whole purpose of reading books. A genius for a week and six-hundred pages just to go right back to an idiot in two sentences and twenty seconds? Forget it. Why am I ain't just watching TV?

Thank you very much for your interpretation of the movie. I've never heard of LGAT, but I've watched fight club hundreds of times (literally) and read the book about 6 times.

Palahniuk is definitely a favorite of mine, and it is interesting to learn where his inspiration likely came from.

I thought I would let you know I have copied and pasted your interpretation and plan on going over it more and reading the books/articles that you've mentioned. I found it incredibly interesting and thoughtful. I don't think your connection seem too far fetched, and I especially liked the link between Jack and his father. I think I will watch the movie again tonight and see if I have a different experience as you have stated above.

Pages

Important Disclaimer: Although this is Chuck Palahniuk’s official website, we are in essence, more an official ‘fansite.’ Chuck Palahniuk himself does not own nor run this website. Nor did he create it. It was started by Dennis Widmyer, who is the webmaster and editor of most of the content. Chuck Palahniuk himself should not be held accountable nor liable for any of the content posted on this website. The opinions expressed in the news updates, content pages and message boards are not the opinions of Chuck Palahniuk nor his publishers. If you are trying to contact Chuck Palahniuk, sending emails to this website will not get you there. You should instead, take the more professional route of contacting his publicist at Doubleday.